Obamacare Will Hurt the Poor and the Elderly

 

John Boehner says Obamacare is the law of the land, and he’s right. At this point, there is no reasonable prospect that it will be repealed before its full implementation in 2014. At that point, there will be huge additional classes of people dependent on federal subsidies to either (A) be covered by Medicaid or (B) buy health insurance in government-organized markets. 

If it is an unpopular program now, in 2014 it will become much more popular with the folks receiving these subsidies. Like Social Security and Medicare, Obamacare clients will come to view it as a right or an entitlement. Anyone who argues for its repeal will be portrayed as a heartless ogre. This is a political reality and Boehner is smart to come to terms with it.

That said, there is one key, politically salient difference between Obamacare and the New Deal/Great Society entitlements: Obamacare creates losers who will be politically impossible to ignore for both Democrats and Republicans alike. This is a complicated subject, but here I’ll focus on two groups of people that will be harmed.

1. The elderly will be hurt — Obamacare cuts a substantial amount of money out of future Medicare expenditures. This is the famous $700 billion cut that go so much attention during the election season. The main way that cuts will be made will be through the newly created Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Given the constraints that body faces, the most likely strategies they will employ include cutting Medicare Advantage and sharply cutting payments to doctors. For the elderly, the latter will mean that Medicare will become more like Medicaid (the government health insurance program for the poor), as fewer doctors will agree to see Medicare patients. 

2. The poor will be hurt — People who are currently insured through Medicaid often cannot find a doctor who will see them. Even if they can find a doctor who takes Medicaid, they face long waits for scheduled care. This is one of the reasons that emergency rooms are so often crowded — they are the only place where Medicaid patients can be guaranteed to see a doctor. Obamacare will greatly expand Medicaid enrollment (by 20+ million people) to the near-poor, but it will do nothing to expand the supply of doctors caring for those patients. This will make it even harder for the poor to find care.

There are others who will be hurt — federal taxpayers and small business owners for instance — but this post is already too long. Democrats will pretend the elderly won’t be hurt. They will respond to the harm to the poor by pushing for expanded funding for Medicaid. Republicans have had mixed success with pointing out the harm to the elderly. Can they make a politically effective, conservative argument about the harm caused to the poor?

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 32 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Profile photo of David Williamson Member

    Err, no.

    It will also hurt the young, because it will make it even harder for them to find (full-time) jobs – but I have no sympathy for ’em – they voted for it, without realizing what was in it – they thought they were getting free health insurance.

    • #1
    • November 9, 2012 at 11:19 am
  2. Profile photo of Jay Bhattacharya Inactive
    Jay Bhattacharya Post author
    David Williamson: Err, no.

    It will also hurt the young, because it will make it even harder for them to find (full-time) jobs – but I have no sympathy for ’em – they voted for it, without realizing what was in it – they thought they were getting free health insurance. · 2 minutes ago

    David, you’re right of course about the young. An additional reason they will be harmed is that they will be forced (through the mandate/tax) to subsidize insurance for older people. A politically competent conservative party would be able to take advantage of the harm caused to all of these groups.

    • #2
    • November 9, 2012 at 11:24 am
  3. Profile photo of Paul Dougherty Member

    Everyone will be hurt. We just won’t realize it. Life, regardless of political system, has a level hurt associated. The Affrodable Care Act will blennd into the sea of all other hurts. When questioned about its effect the response will be “You think it is bad now, think of the disaster without it!”. Tidy, effective and unassailable.

    • #3
    • November 9, 2012 at 11:42 am
  4. Profile photo of Mark Wilson Member

    The other day my physical therapist told me, “Obamacare is gonna kill us.” He said they had already received letters from the insurance companies stating they plan to reduce their payments for services by 30-40%. So either the patient is going to pick up the difference, or his small business is going out of business.

    There’s your cost savings.

    • #4
    • November 9, 2012 at 11:44 am
  5. Profile photo of AUMom Member

    My brother is the VP of operations in a rural regional hospital that serves three counties. He does not believe they will be in business in five years. The closest hospitals will be three hours away.

    • #5
    • November 9, 2012 at 11:50 am
  6. Profile photo of Lavaux Inactive

    Every demographic group whose majority voted to reelect Obama should be hurt by doing so. ObamaCare will do precisely that. In this respect alone it is a well-conceived and drafted law.

    Wanna solve Social Security and Medicare deficits? Give IPAB the power to deny compensation to all health care providers for services rendered to patients over 70 that do not lead to death within three months of performance. Kills two birds with one stone, so to speak.

    Yeah, big government… gotta love it. It’s got the power to give you everything you want and take everything you have, including your life. Seems to me this is why life comes first in the foundational formulation of “Life, Liberty And the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    • #6
    • November 9, 2012 at 11:50 am
  7. Profile photo of Mothership_Greg Inactive

    For the elderly, the latter will mean that Medicare will become more like Medicaid (the government health insurance program for the poor), as fewer doctors will agree to see Medicare patients.

    The feds can require all doctors to see Medicare patients, as a condition of doing business in the USA. This won’t happen until after a “crisis” of massive opt-outs from Medicare, but this entirely predictable problem will not be allowed to go to waste. And when I say “doctors” I of course mean “health care professionals”.

    The first round of healthcare “reform” involved the insurance companies being made out to be evil, and then the government forcing people to buy insurance from said evil insurance companies. The second round will involve demonizing the greedy selfish doctors who are refusing to see the poor and elderly. We’ll see if the doctors organizations go along with this, as the insurance companies went along with greater government control, er, “oversight” in exchange for their promised captive patrons. Politically, I don’t see this ending well for the Democrats, since they wholly own the PPACA. We’ll see sometime between October 2013-April 2014.

    • #7
    • November 10, 2012 at 1:44 am
  8. Profile photo of Southern Pessimist Member

    MG, your analysis is spot on but you are too optimistic. Democrats will ruin the practice of medicine and destroy the relationship between patient and doctor and it will be the doctors’ fault, They are all Republicans after all.

    • #8
    • November 10, 2012 at 2:09 am
  9. Profile photo of Mendel Member

    Building on what So. Pessimist says, I think we should start planning an education campaign.

    Dr. Bhattacharya is obviously right that many people will be hurt by Obamacare. But there are two ways to be hurt: directly and indirectly. Directly includes doctors who won’t accept Medicare patients, higher taxes, the individual mandate penalty, etc. It should be feasible to demonstrate to the public that these negative consequences result directly from Obamacare.

    More insidious are fewer total doctors, fewer small businesses hiring (to avoid going over the minimum number of employees), longer waiting lines, less personal care, etc. These are the types of problems the Democrats always try to pin on the immediate source while distracting from the root cause (that they themselves created).

    We still have a few years to educate the public. Perhaps making a concise list of predictions about the negative effects of Obamacare post-2014 might make it more difficult for Democrats to prevaricate when they start coming true.

    Or maybe not. This is the American public, after all.

    • #9
    • November 10, 2012 at 2:22 am
  10. Profile photo of Mothership_Greg Inactive

    I must confess that I will take some pleasure in watching the progressive healthcare bureaucrats’ utopian fantasy crash and burn. The idea that some pencil-pushing pantsuit wearing ninnies in Washington know better than individual doctors how to treat their individual patients, because of all that nasty “cowboy medicine” and avoidance of “best practices” fills me with disgust and rage.

    It’s a shame the Republicans spent so much political capital on the individual mandate, which, although unpopular and unconstitutional IMHO, is not nearly as ludicrous as the notion that the PPACA will somehow magically get millions of people insured, yet will also save money through increased “efficiency”. Wanting to get everyone insured is a nice idea. Pretending that it will not cost money is insane. If the Democrats had explicitly said “we want to get everyone insured, and to do so, we will need to raise taxes”, the PPACA would never have passed. The magical thinking created by the introduction of a third party payer never ceases to amaze me. I certainly am glad that Catholic hospitals don’t have to directly pay for sterilization for their employees, though. Madness.

    • #10
    • November 10, 2012 at 3:03 am
  11. Profile photo of Zafar Member

    OR, these businesses will respond to market signals and start providing the service at a more competitive price.

    Which is what happened in Australia with the advent of a single payer universal insurer. Australia, btw, spends 9% of GDP on universal health insurance providing an excellent level of care and generally not bankrupting anybody. The US spends 18% of GDP on healthcare.

    Mark Wilson: The other day my physical therapist told me, “Obamacare is gonna kill us.” He said they had already received letters from the insurance companies stating they plan to reduce their payments for services by 30-40%. So either the patient is going to pick up the difference, or his small business is going out of business.

    There’s your cost savings. · 3 hours ago

    • #11
    • November 10, 2012 at 3:23 am
  12. Profile photo of Mark Wilson Member
    Zafar: OR, these businesses will respond to market signals and start providing the service at a more competitive price.

    Which is what happened in Australia with the advent of a single payer universal insurer. Australia, btw, spends 9% of GDP on universal health insurance providing an excellent level of care and generally not bankrupting anybody. The US spends 18% of GDP on healthcare.

    Mark Wilson: The other day my physical therapist told me, “Obamacare is gonna kill us.” He said they had already received letters from the insurance companies stating they plan to reduce their payments for services by 30-40%. So either the patient is going to pick up the difference, or his small business is going out of business.

    There’s your cost savings. · 3 hours ago

    1 hour ago

    I can’t say I’m super familiar with Australia’s healthcare system, but are you arguing that the path to economic efficiency (low prices and quality service) is a single-payer system?

    • #12
    • November 10, 2012 at 4:48 am
  13. Profile photo of Goldgeller Member
    Paul Dougherty: Everyone will be hurt. We just won’t realize it. Life, regardless of political system, has a level hurt associated. The Affrodable Care Act will blennd into the sea of all other hurts. When questioned about its effect the response will be “You think it is bad now, think of the disaster without it!”. Tidy, effective and unassailable. · 5 hours ago

    This is the biggest danger. And you’re so right. But don’t forget, the other thing will be this– “well you Republicans didn’t fund it enough.”

    Isn’t that what they say about conservatives and public schools? “You’re against teachers. You won’t spend enough on them.” 

    • #13
    • November 10, 2012 at 4:54 am
  14. Profile photo of Zafar Member

    Mark

    I realise that this is contrary to market theory – which I largely subscribe to. But when it comes to health care costs, the facts do not conform to the theory.

    Australia has a single payer basic system (with a mixed private and public delivery of services) – and the country pays 9% of its GDP for healthcare. Everybody is covered, the quality is as good as the US. The US lacks a single payer and pays 18% of GDP on healthcare, everybody is not covered.

    Both are culturally diverse countries with high migrant populations. The difference seems to be single payer vs no single payer.

    When the facts don’t support a theory, I think the theory should be modified rather than the facts denied. Fair?

    Regards

    Mark Wilson

    I can’t say I’m super familiar with Australia’s healthcare system, but are you arguing that the path to economic efficiency (low prices and quality service) is a single-payer system? · 28 minutes ago

    • #14
    • November 10, 2012 at 5:57 am
  15. Profile photo of Mark Wilson Member
    Zafar:

    When the facts don’t support a theory, I think the theory should be modified rather than the facts denied. Fair?

    Yes, of course. The hard part is getting the facts right. Making sure you’re comparing apples to apples, and controlling for differences. For example, one reason a country might spend more on something is because they buy more of it, which might be because they want more or need more. Americans spend more on cars than any other country because we simply choose to buy more of them. That’s not necessarily a problem in search of a single-payer government solution.

    So if Americans have bad eating and exercise habits, or if our ethnic makeup is one that results in genetically higher levels of obesity and heart disease, it shouldn’t be a surprise we spend more on health care. What needs to be shown is whether the extra money we spend on healthcare is unreasonable.

    • #15
    • November 10, 2012 at 6:40 am
  16. Profile photo of Mendel Member

    Mark and Zafar, I think you might both be right.

    The main point to remember is that we don’t have a free healthcare market in the U.S. Half of expenditures come from the state, much of the rest from employers. Nobody sees any real costs, public healthcare invisibly makes private healthcare more expensive (thanks Dr. Bhattacharya for explaining that previously), the states regulate insurers to death, etc. In many ways, we have the worst of both worlds.

    I think it is perfectly plausible to say that the Australian single-payer plan provides equal or better overall care at less expense than U.S. healthcare, but that a truly free market in healthcare in the U.S. could be even more efficient.

    • #16
    • November 10, 2012 at 6:52 am
  17. Profile photo of Mothership_Greg Inactive

    If we are to have a public option, by all means let us have the politicians offer this and get it passed. This business of having the CMS bureaucracy micromanage the enormous private payer bureaucracy, and pretend that this will “reduce overhead” and “increase efficiency through economies of scale” or whatever buzzwords they are dazzling the masses with, is utter bollocks. Government option with well-defined limits, paid for via taxes, with a robust private insurance market that isn’t micromanaged into subservience by the government, to give people that can afford it better coverage? By all means, let us have that, if the people want it.

    • #17
    • November 10, 2012 at 7:08 am
  18. Profile photo of Zafar Member

    Mark

    [Making sure you’re comparing apples to apples, and controlling for differences. For example, one reason a country might spend more on something is because they buy more of it, which might be because they want more or need more.]

    Or can afford more. But we are comparing two very rich countries (the US and Australia), with similar populations. Not a rich country with an old population and a poor country with a young one. I think it is apples to apples.

    [So if Americans have bad eating and exercise habits, or if our ethnic makeup is one that results in genetically higher levels of obesity and heart disease]

    I wish with all my heart that Australians all looked like Crocodile Dundee/Female equivalent, but the truth is that we are in direct competition with the US for MONIW (most obese nation in the world). We’re fatties too.

    [What needs to be shown is whether the extra money we spend on healthcare is unreasonable.]

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to buy what you do, but you’re paying too much for it. Looks like market failure.

    Rgds

    • #18
    • November 10, 2012 at 7:15 am
  19. Profile photo of Zafar Member
    Mendel: 

    I think it is perfectly plausible to say that the Australian single-payer plan provides equal or better overall care at less expense than U.S. healthcare, but that a truly free market in healthcare in the U.S. could be even more efficient. · 23 minutes ago

    Could be? And also could not be, right? So far it’s hypothetical.

    But looking at systems in comparable countries around the world:

    Are there any free markets in health care that provide a similar or better level of health coverage to Australia’s for a lower proportion of GDP? (<9%. I can’t think of any. Switzerland has an Obamacare like system which costs them 10.8% of GDP according to that Pearl of Truth wikipedia fwiw.)

    Are there any single payer systems in the world which provide a similar or better level of health coverage to the US’ for a lower proportion of GDP? (<18%. Yes: Australia, Canada, Israel…)

    I guess I don’t understand the need to to re-invent the wheel wrt health care in the US. There are so many other existing systems – compare, contrast, pick one – they all work better.

    What am I missing?

    • #19
    • November 10, 2012 at 7:33 am
  20. Profile photo of Mark Wilson Member

    Zafar, how do you determine “a similar or better level of health coverage to the US’ “? For example, there is the often-cited stat that Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than all of Canada. It’s also frequently noted that average (average!) emergency room wait times in parts of Quebec are upwards of 20 hours, and this is not unusual throughout Canada. And there are also the figures on the many months wait times for elective surgeries. Correct me if I’m wrong on these. 

    If you compare cancer survival rates, the US tops the charts.

    • #20
    • November 10, 2012 at 7:49 am
  21. Profile photo of Mendel Member
    Zafar
    Mendel: 

    I think it is perfectly plausible to say that the Australian single-payer plan provides equal or better overall care at less expense than U.S. healthcare, but that a truly free market in healthcare in the U.S. could be even more efficient.

    Could be? And also could not be, right? So far it’s hypothetical.

    But looking at systems in comparable countries around the world:

    Are there any free markets in health care that provide a similar or better level of health coverage to Australia’s for a lower proportion of GDP?

    Before we can answer that, we have to ask the question: are there any free markets in general healthcare at all in the developed world?

    And the answer is no. So your comparisons mean little, since there is no reference point on the other side. The question is indeed only hypothetical.

    • #21
    • November 10, 2012 at 8:26 am
  22. Profile photo of Mendel Member
    Mark Wilson: For example, there is the often-cited stat that Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than all of Canada.

    Of course, we all know that Medicare pays per service, not per outcome – maybe Pittsburgh has far too many MRI machines than necessary for a healthy populace because of distorted incentives.

    In general, I don’t see why we should defend our current system. Yes, it delivers a number of superior outcomes. It also delivers a number of subpar outcomes in many categories, and is incredibly expensive and wasteful to boot. It’s also not a free-market system by any honest appraisal – and I have no problem saying that it sucks.

    • #22
    • November 10, 2012 at 8:30 am
  23. Profile photo of Zafar Member

    Mark – Quality is determined by the health and life outcomes. Is spending 9% of GDP instead of 18% on healthcare worth longer waits in emergency rooms for conditions that allow it? I say yes.

    Wrt statistics

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/

    From which:

    …the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average, according to a 2008 study in the British medical journal Lancet. …

    But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations….

    …survival rates in Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba were all comparable to or higher than U.S. survival rates on all types of cancer that the Lancet study examined, except for prostate cancer. Those countries all have some form of government-provided health care coverage….

    aggressive screening common in the U.S. turns up both early cases [of prostate cancer] and cases that would never need intervention. This leads to an inflated survival rate in the U.S., where asymptomatic patients are more likely to be diagnosed. [and to be alive five years after diagnosis.]

    [Statistics] don’t really present any obvious conclusions when used to compare different populations.

    ?

    • #23
    • November 10, 2012 at 8:42 am
  24. Profile photo of Zafar Member

    Mendel

    [Before we can answer that, we have to ask the question: are there any free markets in general healthcare at all in the developed world?

    And the answer is no. So your comparisons mean little, since there is no reference point on the other side. The question is indeed only hypothetical.]

    So if we stick to comparing apples to apples, how about free markets in general healthcare in the developing world? Are there any? How do they compare wrt outcomes with single payer/centrally provided healthcare systems in countries at a similar level of development?

    And more fundamentally, why do countries seem start regulating health care provision as soon as their societies start aspiring to have the entire population covered?

    I think it is unfair to blame markets for doing what untrammelled markets do: maximise individual profit. In most cases this does grow wealth and benefit the whole of society. 

    Wrt health care provision, however, profit maximisation can be perfectly consistent with a certain level of deprivation in society. Universal health care is not automatically consistent with maximising profit (ie efficiency) from health care provision. Why does it make sense to expect the market to automatically deliver it?

    Regards

    • #24
    • November 10, 2012 at 8:58 am
  25. Profile photo of Zafar Member

    [In general, I don’t see why we should defend our current system. Yes, it delivers a number of superior outcomes. It also delivers a number of subpar outcomes in many categories, and is incredibly expensive and wasteful to boot. It’s also not a free-market system by any honest appraisal – and I have no problem saying that it sucks.]

    To clarify: I will say that health care technology (and health care itself, perhaps) IS recognised as excellent in the US. When my father needed a bypass lo those many years ago we took him from India straight to Houston.

    Any questions I (an outsider) have about the system are about getting that health care to the people – it isn’t an attack on the quality of that care at all.

    • #25
    • November 10, 2012 at 9:36 am
  26. Profile photo of jarhead Inactive

    I don’t know if Republicans have the backbone, but how much can Republicans block the implementation of Obamacare in the House by refusing to fund it?

    • #26
    • November 10, 2012 at 12:05 pm
  27. Profile photo of Cutlass Inactive
    jarhead: I don’t know if Republicans have the backbone, but how much can Republicans block the implementation of Obamacare in the House by refusing to fund it? 

    Nope. We should step back and say “You voted for this, you can have it. Elections have consequences, so bend over.”

    If we can’t get repeal it there’s no benefit to making insignificant dents to it. All that would do if allow them to blame the inevitable results on our meddling.

    The fight now moves to the states. Wherever possible red states must block as much as possible. We need at least a few states can resist enough to serve as a contrast.

    • #27
    • November 10, 2012 at 12:19 pm
  28. Profile photo of Paul Dougherty Member
    jarhead: I don’t know if Republicans have the backbone, but how much can Republicans block the implementation of Obamacare in the House by refusing to fund it? · 3 minutes ago

    I don’t know about backbone but, is it wise to stand between a pride of lions and a fresh kill holding up your hands and saying “Please, reconsider. The meat is poison.”?

    Unrelated: judging from your handle, it may not be too presumptive to wish you Semper Fi and a early “Happy Birthday Marine!”.

    • #28
    • November 10, 2012 at 12:28 pm
  29. Profile photo of Southern Pessimist Member
    Cutlass
    jarhead: I don’t know if Republicans have the backbone, but how much can Republicans block the implementation of Obamacare in the House by refusing to fund it? 

    Nope. We should step back and say “You voted for this, you can have it. Elections have consequences, so bend over.”

    If we can’t get repeal it there’s no benefit to making insignificant dents to it. All that would do if allow them to blame the inevitable results on our meddling.

    The fight now moves to the states. Wherever possible red states must block as much as possible. We need at least a few states can resist enough to serve as a contrast. · 7 minutes ago

    Michael Cannon at NRO today expands on that last point with good detail. Democrats will have to propose legislation to improve the current law but that is going to be very tough. Someone here has been saying if you don’t have a doctor who knows your name and will return your calls you better find one while you can and pay whatever it takes to keep that physician loyal to you.

    • #29
    • November 10, 2012 at 12:34 pm
  30. Profile photo of Mothership_Greg Inactive

    It’s a shame these discussions never get beyond the most superficial of copy-pasting links to factcheck.org level. Does anyone here actually have to work with CMS on a regular basis? I do. It’s a terrible bureaucracy. Does anyone here know about the new readmission penalty?

    Some analysts say the penalties hit hardest the hospitals that serve poor and minority communities and those that do well at keeping the sickest patients alive — and not necessarily those that provide poor quality care. Drs. Karen Joynt and Ashish Jha of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine in April that the policy is “misguided” and may cost critical hospital resources that could be better spent on other patient safety efforts.

    Others point to the fact that hospitals, particularly in Massachusetts, are already doing the difficult work of redesigning the way they care for patients with the most complicated medical histories. A state law passed this summer pushes providers into new payment models that reward them for managing patients’ overall health care over time.

    • #30
    • November 11, 2012 at 7:00 am
  1. 1
  2. 2